Although a Doctor is a Professional The Doctor is not a Lawyer
Post 4862
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gPNMyrtJ, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPtpvAi6 and at https://lnkd.in/gQxUTxku, and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
Dr. Megan Rust appealed acting as her own attorney from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Labcorp) in her action alleging five California state-law contract claims.
In Megan Rust, M.D., an individual v. Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings, No. 23-55186, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (August 23, 2024) the Ninth Circuit resolved the issues raised by Dr. Rust.
The Ninth Circuit declined to address Dr. Rust’s argument that this action concerns whistleblower retaliation because she raised it for the first time on appeal.
Labcorp’s submission of excerpted deposition transcripts, rather than complete transcripts, in support of its summary-judgment motion was entirely appropriate.
A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions. Dr. Rust failed to produce evidence to controvert Labcorp’s evidence nor did she identify any specific material information in the omitted portions of the transcripts creating a genuine dispute.
ANALYSIS OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ISSUES
If the party moving for summary judgment meets its initial burden of identifying for the court those portions of the materials on file that it believes demonstrates the absence of any genuine issues of material fact, then the nonmoving party must set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. The district judge is not required to comb the record to find some reason to deny a motion for summary judgment. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Dr. Rust’s first claim, breach of contract. The district court properly concluded that: "extrinsic evidence-in the form of Dr. Rust’s acquisition of full-time malpractice insurance coverage and LabCorp’s supposed, but uncorroborated, oral statements contracting Dr. Rust for full-time work-was barred under the parol evidence rule because the parties executed a written, integrated agreement for “part-time professional pathology services, as requested.”
When parties enter an integrated written agreement, extrinsic evidence may not be relied upon to alter or add to the terms of the writing.
Dr. Rust waived any argument of error regarding summary judgment on her claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, because her summary-judgment briefing affirmatively conceded that no genuine dispute of material fact existed with respect to this claim.
Dr. Rust’s “conclusory, self-serving” deposition testimony that Labcorp interfered with another business opportunity, standing alone, lacks detailed facts and any supporting evidence, so it is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.
Dr. Rust did not point to evidence in the record, other than her own declaration, showing a triable issue of a material fact.
The fact that a judge rules against Dr. Rust is not evidence that the district judge exhibited bias or engaged in judicial misconduct. Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance is a contract. Failure to prove the contract destroys the entire action brought by Dr. Rust in pro se. She was faced with a motion for summary judgment and failed to produce any evidence that established an issue of fact to defeat Labcorp’s motion for summary judgment and proved the maxim that a person who acts as her own attorney has a fool for a client.
THE ART OF ADJUSTING
I will be appearing on the “Art of Adjusting” podcast The link below is a preview of the podcast that will be posted in full next week. https://dropbox.com/scl/fi/ldkfrvc
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
Posted on July 6, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
In Tami Duvall v. State Of Indiana, No. 1:25-cv-01239-SEB-TAB, United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division (July 1, 2026) Indiana prisoner Tami Duvall filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2011 Indiana convictions for murder, insurance fraud, and obstruction of justice.
Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendment of pleadings, allowing amendment as of course within specified time limits and otherwise permitting amendment with leave of court when justice so requires.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the Court to strike redundant matter. Rule 5 of the Rules ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
